"A new walkway and large landscaped vibrant courtyard, from Broad Street through to Commercial Street, will deliver a pedestrianised connection through from the centre of town to Liberty Wharf and will include landscaping with trees and plants and artwork created by local artists who are acclaimed internationally."
"Every aspect of Les Sablons has taken careful consideration into the factors that environmental impacts have on wider social and economic outcomes, with sustainability being central to the development and its surrounding environment. This new central community and socialising space will transform this rundown area and bring new life to St Helier with a space for events and outdoor entertainment."
But it has been turned down by the Assistant Minister!
Mr Young said that it would also be wrong for a States Member to bring a proposition to the Assembly seeking to overturn the Assistant Minister’s rejection. We can’t have this application going to the States Assembly because that would take us back to the days of every decision being made by the Assembly," he said. The law empowers the Minister to be the decision-maker and, if needs be, to go against the recommendation of an inspector, as long as they give their reasons. (Bailiwick Express)
I have to say I disagree strongly with John Young on this.
The States Assembly is and always has been sovereign.
An example of a Ministerial Decision called to account.
When Guy de Faye introduced a Ministerial decision to permit utility companies access to (and digging up) private gardens, Senator Ben Shenton quite rightly brought a proposition to rescind that decision. That kind of proposition is never taken lightly, and would only be taken (as it was by Ben Shenton) when it is clear that there are good grounds for a Ministerial decision to be robustly challenged.
In November 2007, the Minister made a Ministerial Decision, MD–T-2007-0092, to vary the policy on using the Drainage (Jersey) Law 2005 to serve Notice on third party landowners for the benefit of developers and private individuals.
The new policy would have allowed the serving of Notice to be considered if a Public gain could be demonstrated, namely, if the developer or individual was willing and able to connect additional surrounding properties to the public foul sewer network at his own expense. Under the previous policy, such requests by a developer or individual to serve Notice in this way would not have been entertained.
The Ministerial Decision prompted Senator Ben Shenton to take a Report and Proposition to the States requesting the Minister for Transport and Technical Services to rescind the decision.
The States debate on the proposition was held on 3 June 2008, and the proposition was supported by a large majority of States Members. The change in the law, which was imposed by ministerial order, was overturned in the States a majority of 40 to 5.
A revised decision said "Given the result of the debate, it is believed that it is now appropriate to re-confirm the original policy on the use of the Drainage Law on behalf of developers or private individuals. In essence, the Minister will not use his powers under the Drainage (Jersey) Law 2005 to serve notice on third party land owners for the benefit of developers or private individuals."
Against Guidelines and the Inspector
Hilary Jeune (according to John Young) would have taken advice before rejecting the plans. If she did, on planning grounds, let's see the advice anonymised, as I am completely sceptical.
"The law empowers the Minister to be the decision-maker and, if needs be, to go against the recommendation of an inspector, as long as they give their reasons.”
Hilary Jeune gave reasons, but these seem to be just opinions as the Planning Inspector found the development did NOT contravene the Planning Laws or guidelines. So to refuse comes down to personal views. I have always thought that Ministerial decisions have from the start given far too much power to a minister without redress. But that is surely why the Assembly is sovereign.
A very subjective judgement
In this case, the revised plans were within planning guidelines, they were recommended by approval by the Inspector, but Hilary Jeune said it would be "“overbearing and oppressive” and “failed to make a positive contribution to the local character and distinctiveness of the place, as it does not successfully respond to its context to ensure that the enhancement of identity, character and the creation of a durable and safe sense of place”.
I've seen the plans and the how it will look (https://www.lemasurier.co.uk/les-sablons/) as well as the notes on it, and quite frankly I cannot see we are looking at the same design. If Hilary Jeune thinks it "oppressive" she seems to be completely lacking any aesthetic sense. If I was to take anything as "oppressive", it would be the large cubical buildings of the International Finance Centre. Is this her judgement or a whim?
In conclusion
To suggest that if the States on one occasion, vote on a proposition to rescind her decision is not, as John Young suggests, to "open the floodgates" to every planning decision. Nonsense! The question really should be: should such an important development (and these do not occur on an everyday basis) which has the approval of an inspector, be open to reconsideration. And I think the answer has to be yes. Obviously it cannot come from within the Council of Ministers, but the Constable of St Helier, for example, could bring a proposition to that effect.
The history, above all, is clear, that a Ministerial decision can - and has - been overturned by the States. The history also shows that this is a rare event, and not as scaremongering might say, opening floodgates to others.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment